Jones v. Cochran
| Decision Date | 22 June 1960 |
| Parties | Billie (William) JONES, Petitioner, v. H. G. COCHRAN, Jr., Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William Jones, in pro. per., for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Odis M. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The petitioner, Billie Jones, a minor plead guilty to a charge of auto theft and was given an indeterminate sentence of six months to five years imprisonment.
As a result of the filing of the petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus we issued our rule nisi to which the respondent filed a return. Thereupon the petitioner filed a document entitled 'Brief In Support Of Rule Nisi' which we will treat as a traverse of the return of the respondent.
While we find no merit in many of the allegations of the petition and the 'Brief,' there are two matters which do demand our concern.
The first of these is the contention of petitioner that the trial court should have appointed counsel to represent him in the proceedings in the trial court.
Petitioner alleges, and it is not denied by respondent, that he was sixteen years of age at the time of commission of the crime charged, and that he had just turned seventeen at the time he entered a plea of guilty, was adjudged guilty, and was sentenced as above recited. He alleges that he had only a third grade education and was ignorant of the ways of criminal court proceedings. He alleged that he is now insolvent.
In his petition petitioner complained that the court had denied him, 'a 17 year old boy the right and apointment of councel, and his right to at least one phone call.'
In his return respondent denies that the trial court refused the petitioner the right to secure counsel of his choice and denies that the court was lawfully bound to furnish petitioner with court appointed counsel. The respondent points out the record does not indicate that petitioner requested either the right to employ counsel or that he asked the court to furnish counsel to him. Respondent also calls attention to the fact that the offense of stealing an automobile is not so intricate or complex 'as to require any degree of legal genius to * * * defend.'
This court has said in numerous cases that while there is no requirement under Florida law that counsel be furnished an insolvent defendant, except in a prosecution involving a capital offense, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution our trial courts should furnish counsel to a defendant where the accused is incapable of representing himself adequately at the trial on account of age, ignorance, or lack of mental capacity. In each case the existence of such incapacity is a question of fact. Sneed v. Mayo, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 865; Sheffield v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 449; Butler v. Culver, Fla.1959, 111 So.2d 35; and McNeal v. Culver, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 381.
As stated in Sneed v. Mayo, supra, where the record shows that the defendant did not have counsel, or is silent thereon, it will be presumed that he waived such right, but that the presumption of waiver is rebutted by a showing of incapacity of the defendant because of age, ignorance, or lack of mental capacity to adequately represent himself at the trial. If the trier of fact, i.e. the trial court, has made a determination of the capacity of the defendant to represent himself, it will not be disturbed on habeas corpus proceedings but if no such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Cochran
...at his arraignment when he pleaded guilty to the charge. The petition impressed us as having prima facie merit. By opinion in Jones v. Cochran, Fla., 121 So.2d 657, we indicated concern over the allegation that petitioner was under seventeen at the time of his trial and, therefore, subject ......
-
Wade v. State, 6695
...that it is necessary to remand this case for a hearing to determine the defendant's age at the time of the offense. See Jones v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 121 So.2d 657. There is another point involved, which is that the appellant here, even if he were nineteen, was unmarried and therefore entitle......